Pragmatic Passion on Ridgeline Project

Passion is palpable on Middlebury’s campus. As students, we devote ourselves to a wide variety of causes – perhaps best evidenced by the College’s 169 clubs and organizations. While we are certainly an engaged student body, we do not always act constructively on our passions. The Campus editorial board has seen this play out most recently with the debate over Ridgeline construction.

The Ridgeline housing project has garnered a great deal of attention as of late. While it satisfies basic accessibility requirements on the ground floor, the higher floors of the elevator-less building will be inaccessible to those with mobility impairments. This oversight has prompted alumni, current students and faculty to draft a petition asking the Board of Trustees to modify the blueprints for the building.

Our editorial board sympathizes with the petitioners’ concern. We take these issues of accessibility and inclusivity seriously and we do not wish to trivialize the relevance of the petition or the op-eds on this topic. In our last editorial, we too were critical of the project without fully considering the implications of stopping construction. We believe it is important, however, to engage constructively on the issue of inclusivity and understand what can be accomplished and at what cost.

To make the entire Ridgeline complex accessible, the College would have to stop the project and redraw the blueprints. Though decidedly imperfect, the project does meet ADA standards and a cost-benefit analysis over the choice to upend construction reveals more costs than benefits. It will take an estimated five million dollars to make the three townhouses accessible on all floors. Likewise, the College could face up to an additional three million dollars in penalties from breaking its contract and such a high expenditure would offer only a minor solution to a large problem. The same capital could go further in improving the many buildings on campus that do not currently meet any ADA standards. Many on our editorial board remember having classes in Munroe or Warner moved to different rooms if a classmate could not climb the buildings’ stairs and access the classroom. Why not focus our limited resources on these outdated buildings that are more widely used rather than Ridgeline townhouses, which will be home to a select few?

When difficult issues are on the table, we need to take into account pragmatic constraints – in this case the five million dollar price tag required to stop construction and add elevators. The goal of increasing accessibility on campus is valid, but the petitioners’ criticism is too focused on these new buildings and ignores the costs required to implement them. In some instances, having our voices heard by the administration will require framing our demands within Old Chapel’s paradigm the College must prioritize when making financial decisions.

Let us collaborate with our administration. Our new president, inheritor of this project, has extended her hand. She has written an op-ed to engage in the debate this week, suggested creating an administrative task force for the Ridgeline construction and held meetings – such as one on October 30th – to discuss the issues raised with the project. Furthermore, let us voice our concerns proactively rather than reactively. A mere dozen students attended the pre-Ridgeline construction meeting advertised by the administration, while 467 individuals (and counting) signed the petition critiquing the existing plan. It is easy to point out what is wrong, but the real and necessary challenge is coming up with pragmatic solutions when blueprints are on the table, not after they have gone into construction. Middlebury students are more than qualified to take on this challenge. We are right to care about this, but we must care constructively.